Research › Search › Judgment

Uttarakhand High Court · body

2015 DIGILAW 322 (UTT)

Kavita Tamta v. Cantonment Board Ranikhet

2015-06-24

ALOK SINGH

body2015
JUDGMENT : Alok Singh, J. Present petition is filed assailing the order dated 6th February, 2008, passed by the Chief Executive Officer, Cantonment Board, Ranikhet, whereby services of the petitioner were terminated. 2. Undisputed brief facts of the present case, inter alia, are that Cantonment Board, Ranikhet has issued advertisement on 8th January, 2005 inviting applications for seven posts of Assistant Teachers in Primary School; requisite qualification for the post of Assistant Teacher, Primary School was intermediate plus B.T.C.; vide corrigendum dated 11th March, 2005, it was notified that candidates having qualification of B.Ed. or equivalent can also apply for the post of Assistant Teacher; petitioner has applied for the post of Assistant Teacher claiming herself intermediate and Shiksha Visharad from Hindi Sahitya Sammelan, Allahabad saying Shiksha Visharad is equal to B.Ed./B.T.C.; vide appointment letter dated 22.03.2007, petitioner was appointed as Assistant Teacher with the stipulation that she would be on probation for two years; meanwhile, a complaint was received by the Cantonment Board, Ranikhet to the effect that Division Bench of this Court in the case of Shailendra Singh and others Vs. State of Uttaranchal and others, (Special Appeal No. 90 of 2006) reported in 2007 (1) U.D., 155 has held that degree of Shiksha Visharad issued by the Hindi Sahitya Sammelan is not equivalent to B.Ed., therefore, petitioner was not qualified/eligible to be appointed as Assistant Teacher; a notice was issued to the petitioner seeking clarification as to how she was claiming that degree of Shiksha Visharad was equivalent to B.Ed.; meanwhile, explanation was also called by the Cantonment Board, Ranikhet from N.C.T.E as to whether degree of Shiksha Visharad was equivalent to B.Ed.; N.C.T.E. has opined that degree of Shiksha Visharad was not equivalent to B.Ed.; having received clarification from the N.C.T.E. as well as Education Department of Uttarakhand, impugned order dated 6th February, 2008 was passed terminating the services of the petitioner during the period of probation. Feeling aggrieved, petitioner has preferred present writ petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India. 3. I have heard Mr. B.D. Pande, learned counsel for the petitioner and Mr. Sanjay Bhatt, learned counsel for the respondents and have carefully perused the record. 4. Learned counsel, appearing for the parties, do not dispute settled position of law that during the period of probation services of the employee can be terminated without assigning any reason. 3. I have heard Mr. B.D. Pande, learned counsel for the petitioner and Mr. Sanjay Bhatt, learned counsel for the respondents and have carefully perused the record. 4. Learned counsel, appearing for the parties, do not dispute settled position of law that during the period of probation services of the employee can be terminated without assigning any reason. Both of them do not dispute that requisite qualification for the post of Assistant Teacher was intermediate plus B.T.C.. 5. Learned counsel for the petitioner fairly submits that petitioner is not having either B.T.C. or B.Ed. He, however, submits that petitioner is having degree of Shiksha Visharad, equivalent to B.Ed., which was produced by the petitioner at the time of scrutiny of the documents before the Cantonment Board and having perused the same, treating the degree of Shiksha Visharad equivalent to B.Ed., petitioner was given appointment, therefore, subsequently termination of the services of the petitioner saying degree of Shiksha Visharad is not equivalent to B.Ed. is not proper and legal. 6. Since Division Bench of this Court in the case of Shailendra Singh (Supra) has held that degree of Shiksha Visharad issued by Hindi Sahitya Sammelan is not equivalent to the B.Ed. and judgment passed by the Division Bench of this Court still covers the field, therefore, merely because Cantonment Board initially has accepted the degree of Shiksha Visharad equivalent to B.T.C./B.Ed. does not give any right to the petitioner to say that degree of Shiksha Visharad is equivalent to the B.Ed. If petitioner is not having requisite minimum qualification of B.T.C. or B.Ed., then petitioner is not eligible to be appointed. Therefore, termination of the services of the petitioner solely on this ground that too during the period of probation, cannot be faulted with. 7. Consequently, writ petition fails and is hereby dismissed.